Re: [netmod] *one* week 2nd WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-07

Lou Berger <> Tue, 12 December 2017 15:42 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D74F1294A2 for <>; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 07:42:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lauQHLktsG6r for <>; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 07:42:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACB07127077 for <>; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 07:42:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cmgw3 (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BB011E106B for <>; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 08:42:04 -0700 (MST)
Received: from ([]) by cmgw3 with id l3i01w00D2SSUrH013i3f4; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 08:42:04 -0700
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=XM9AcUpE c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=ocR9PWop10UA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=FcTUuYA1uVtRCE6JGIQA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:Cc:References:To:From:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=TUkKcg+m9z+67JTbZ+TOArCpH5ufeld78usGxXTdCyo=; b=frM0TvMe5En3WEruLbmAAAYjOt TUGr6/xCnOMEYegWt9Mw3VZOPRaqOCwzkVXx/uZvtmzz2+mLSxnQa93Tkd+VBwQfpTyTVItJBtj6F Ziayzhmch8dir+XiF9c+/J4wo;
Received: from ([]:36296 by with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <>) id 1eOmgy-003inV-FE; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 08:42:00 -0700
From: Lou Berger <>
To: "" <>
References: <>
Cc: NetMod WG <>, NetMod WG Chairs <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:41:59 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Exim-ID: 1eOmgy-003inV-FE
X-Source-Sender: ( []:36296
X-Email-Count: 2
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] *one* week 2nd WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-07
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 15:42:49 -0000

	These comments are based on my Shepherd review of this document and
should be addressed as part of addressing any LC comments:

1) Considering the recent discussion on Library made me consider the
general case of a module that is composed entirely of operational state.
 I think this case is subject to interpretation and therefore needs to
be explicitly covered.  For example section 5.3 states:

   The datastore schema for <operational> MUST be a superset of the
   combined datastore schema used in all configuration datastores except
   that YANG nodes supported in a configuration datastore MAY be omitted
   from <operational> if a server is not able to accurately report them.

This could be read that a module that an operational state MUST be
present (but presumably empty>?) in some other DS to be present in
operational.  I don't believe this is your intent, but it should be
explicitly covered for the benefit of future readers.  I suspect that
this also should translate to an explicit case in section 6.1 as well.

2) The abstract needs to mention that it updates RFC7950 (per idnits)

3) A minor point, the document uses the terms boot and reboot.  I
suspect that these terms are intended to cover any full or partial,
e.g., protocol, restart operation supported on a system - which may not
include a full boot.  I think the document needs to be clear on this
point.  Perhaps just add a definition, or note that full and partial
restart operations are included when the document refers to boot and reboot.

Thank you,
(As Shepherd)

On 12/04/2017 09:35 AM, Lou Berger wrote:
> All,
> This starts a second working group last call on
> draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores.
> As this is a 2nd LC that is focused on changes since the last LC, it closes in *one* week. The working group last call ends on December 11. Please send your comments to the netmod mailing list.
> At this point, we're most interested in verifying that previous comments are addressed since the last call on the -04 rev of the draft was held.
> A summary of changes can be found at 
> A diff can be found at 
> Comments along the of: I have reviewed this version of the document and it addresses my previous comments would be particularly helpful.
> Thank you,
> Netmod Chairs
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list